Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Where in the above does it say any of those things at all?

In your previous post.

You are making it up!

I wish I was, but your meaning is quite clear.

Where does it talk about people as “charlatans and liars”?

Also in the present case it seems, some of us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

Or anyone being in a “willing state of submission”?

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

 

[Stone]

I love the smell of a strawman in the morning.
Your post's efforts to limit skepticism of an HJ to a single mythicist view are amusing, but not surprising.

Why not surprising?

Stone

 

[Brainache]

Why would anyone agree with a false statement such as this?

Isn't it patently obvious that christian literature is full of mythology? Prophetic dreams, magic, corpses rising from the grave, people walking on water, etc etc etc?

What sort of evidence would one expect to find for a non-existent thing?

Only things that exist are capable of leaving evidence.

One would expect to find evidence of a cult who worshipped a purely "Spiritual, Celestial" Jesus, if we are talking about Carrier's Hypothesis.

There is no such cult anywhere to be found.

In fact the earliest tradition that we know of, the Ebionites, apparently followed a Jesus who was wholly human and not divine at all. Their books were destroyed as heretical by later Christians, but there are traces to be found. No such luck for Carrier's "Celestial" Jesus.

So if you want to posit a Christianity that began without a Jesus, you'll have to come up with something more plausible.

Maximara had a go at it, but he left out the Ebionites. Let's see your Historical explanation for how the religion developed without a Jesus. What have you got?

 

[dejudge]

...In fact the earliest tradition that we know of, the Ebionites, apparently followed a Jesus who was wholly human and not divine at all. Their books were destroyed as heretical by later Christians, but there are traces to be found.

The earliest tradition is NOT the Ebionites. You made that up.

There is no claim by Apologetics that the Ebionites were the earliest Christians and the Ebionites are mentioned in writings attributed to supposed 2nd century writers or later.

The earliest known source to mention the Ebionites was "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus c 180 CE and the author claimed Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost was crucified c 50 CE or when he was an OLD MAN.


The Jesus cult of Christians started WITHOUT an historical Jesus just like the Jewish religion started without an historical God or the same way Marcionism started WITHOUT a real Phantom.

It makes no sense that the Jesus cult started with known lies.

If people of the Roman Empire including Jews actually knew Jesus and that he was crucified as a criminal then it is virtually impossible that such a character would have been worshiped as a God and claimed to be the Messiah AFTER he was dead.

Jews do not worship men as Gods and Romans do NOT worship Jewish criminals as Divine creatures.

Paul, a Pharisee, would have been regarded as a suicidal IDIOT if he actually attempted to evangelize the Roman Empire claiming that a KNOWN executed Jewish criminal was Lord, the Son of God, the Savior and that every knee should bow to him even the Emperors of Rome.

The Pauline Corpus only makes sense if there was NO KNOWN historical Jesus.

There is NO history of Jews who worshiped Men as Gods.

In Philo's "Embassy to Gaius"--the vey Emperor admitted that the Jews were the only people on earth who did NOT worship him as a God.

On the Embassy to Gaius

Your loyal and excellent fellow citizens, the only nation of men upon the whole face of the earth by whom Gaius is not esteemed to be a god, appear now to be even desiring to plot my death in their obstinate disobedience...

In Tacitus' Histories 5 it is claimed the Jews have a mental concept of God.

Tacitus' Histories 5

.... the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.

They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay.
They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors.

The Jesus cult of Christian started WITHOUT an historical Jesus sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Up to the 5th century even Jesus cult Christians claimed Jesus was NOT born which is evidence that there was NEVER any established evidence of an historical Jesus.

Contra Faustum 2

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.
It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

The Jesus cult did NOT even need and historical Jesus--they needed a Myth--their Jesus was the Son of God who came down from heaven.

 

[Brainache]

The earliest tradition is NOT the Ebionites. You made that up.

There is no claim by Apologetics that the Ebionites were the earliest Christians and the Ebionites are mentioned in writings attributed to supposed 2nd century writers or later.
...

Why do you think that means the Ebionites weren't an early tradition?

Why do you base your ideas on things claimed by Apologists?

Where did you learn this idiotic method of studying History?

People need to be warned against any institution that teaches this kind of nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

Why do you think that means the Ebionites weren't an early tradition?

I am merely exposing your known fallacious claim that the Ebionites were the earliest tradition.

You never had any actual evidence or source [apologetic or not].

Why do you base your ideas on things claimed by Apologists?

You have NO idea how history is done. In order to do history one must examine writings of antiquity--Apologetic or not.

You use Galatians 1.19 TO ARGUE for your James Gang. Why do you base your ideas on things claimed in the Bible?
If you knew how history was done you would not have claimed that the Ebionites were the earliest tradition.

Where did you learn this idiotic method of studying History?

Tell us the IDIOTIC method which was used to claim the Ebionites were the earliest tradition.

People need to be warned against any institution that teaches this kind of nonsense.

Dr. Dale Martin, a professor of Religious Studies at Yale, admits he believes the Real Jesus is 100% God and 100% man--God Incarnate.

Joseph Ratzinger, the former Bishop of Rome, a Christian Scholar, preached that Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar, preached at the Reformed Church of America, that the Real Jesus is the Son of God, born of the Holy Ghost.

There may be hundreds of Christian Scholars who believe in a Myth Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

There may be hundreds of Christian Scholars who believe in a Myth Jesus.

Including, you inform us, Joseph Ratzinger. You have been spouting balderdash for hundreds of pages, but have now said something that is indeed true: the Pope's a Catholic. Unfortunately we knew that already. However, I am an atheist and I do not believe in a Myth Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Including, you inform us, Joseph Ratzinger. You have been spouting balderdash for hundreds of pages, but have now said something that is indeed true: the Pope's a Catholic. Unfortunately we knew that already. However, I am an atheist and I do not believe in a Myth Jesus.

You have been spouting logical fallacies for hundreds of pages.

How is it you are an atheist and believe the Son of God existed?

The Son of God was with Satan and Angels in the wilderness, he walked on the sea, transfigured in the presence of the Resurrected Moses and Elijah, and then was raised from the dead.

How could you be an atheist and believe the Bible is an historical source for the Son of God and do so WITHOUT corroboration?

Atheists typically are concerned about EVIDENCE not belief and imagination.

Tell us the history of your Son of God and the sources that you used.

 

[IanS]

How sceptical are you about the existence of Jesus? You have been arguing that the evidence is enough to convince you that he existed, haven’t you?

Sceptics are people who express doubt about things claimed by others.

Here “sceptics” probably include those who express considerable doubt about the actual existence of Jesus, those who might think that if there was ever any such person then he would not have born any meaningful relation to the figure described in the bible, or simply those who doubt the evidence claimed to support the belief. Also in the present case it seems, some of us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

So you believe that those who conclude that the historicity of Jesus is probable, are in a willing state of submission to "bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers"; and that these are charlatans and liars.

I see.

In your previous post. I wish I was, but your meaning is quite clear.

You claim that my previous post, which I have quoted in full above, says that I called people “charlatans and liars” and said that you and other HJ believers are “in a willing state of submission to bible scholars …”? OK, well quote where my above post says any such thing.

Don’t just keep accusing my post of saying that. Don’t just keep saying that my post said those things. Use the quote function to back up your claim by quoting directly where it says that in my post.

Where does my post talk about “charlatans and liars” and “willing submission”? Quote it please.

 

[Brainache]

You claim that my previous post, which I have quoted in full above, says that I called people “charlatans and liars” and said that you and other HJ believers are “in a willing state of submission to bible scholars …”? OK, well quote where my above post says any such thing.

Don’t just keep accusing my post of saying that. Don’t just keep saying that my post said those things. Use the quote function to back up your claim by quoting directly where it says that in my post.

Where does my post talk about “charlatans and liars” and “willing submission”? Quote it please.

You really think that no one could infer that from your post?

 

[pakeha]

... It makes no sense that the Jesus cult started with known lies.

If people of the Roman Empire including Jews actually knew Jesus and that he was crucified as a criminal then it is virtually impossible that such a character would have been worshiped as a God and claimed to be the Messiah AFTER he was dead.

Jews do not worship men as Gods and Romans do NOT worship Jewish criminals as Divine creatures.

Paul, a Pharisee, would have been regarded as a suicidal IDIOT if he actually attempted to evangelize the Roman Empire claiming that a KNOWN executed Jewish criminal was Lord, the Son of God, the Savior and that every knee should bow to him even the Emperors of Rome.

The Pauline Corpus only makes sense if there was NO KNOWN historical Jesus.

There is NO history of Jews who worshiped Men as Gods.

In Philo's "Embassy to Gaius"--the vey Emperor admitted that the Jews were the only people on earth who did NOT worship him as a God.

On the Embassy to Gaius

Your loyal and excellent fellow citizens, the only nation of men upon the whole face of the earth by whom Gaius is not esteemed to be a god, appear now to be even desiring to plot my death in their obstinate disobedience...

In Tacitus' Histories 5 it is claimed the Jews have a mental concept of God.

Tacitus' Histories 5

.... the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.

They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay.
They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors.

The Jesus cult of Christian started WITHOUT an historical Jesus sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Up to the 5th century even Jesus cult Christians claimed Jesus was NOT born which is evidence that there was NEVER any established evidence of an historical Jesus.

Contra Faustum 2

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.
It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

The Jesus cult did NOT even need and historical Jesus--they needed a Myth--their Jesus was the Son of God who came down from heaven.

I see your point about possible Jewish reaction to being asked to worship a man as a god.
The Jewish reaction to being asked to worship any Emperor is well enough known, after all.

But isn't this what James in Jerusalem was preaching? The worship of a man ascended to heaven?
How is it possible James was able to preach such blasphemy in Jerusalem during at least 20 years and that his murder caused the downfall of the High Priest Ananus, as Josephus is said to have reported?

Something doesn't quite fit in that scenario.

 

[Brainache]

I see your point about possible Jewish reaction to being asked to worship a man as a god.
The Jewish reaction to being asked to worship any Emperor is well enough known, after all.

But isn't this what James in Jerusalem was preaching? The worship of a man ascended to heaven?
How is it possible James was able to preach such blasphemy in Jerusalem during at least 20 years and that his murder caused the downfall of the High Priest Ananus, as Josephus is said to have reported?

Something doesn't quite fit in that scenario.

Because:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men.

This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

This "Fourth Philosophy" Josephus is talking about is Messianism. The followers of the "Star Prophecy" from the book of Daniel.

This Messiah Cult brought down the whole nation. I think that might be why the Rabbis don't include Daniel in the list of major Prophets. They don't like Dan all that much.

 

[Craig B]

You claim that my previous post, which I have quoted in full above, says that I called people “charlatans and liars” and said that you and other HJ believers are “in a willing state of submission to bible scholars …”? OK, well quote where my above post says any such thing.

No. I stated that that was the clear meaning of the expressions you used.

 

[maximara]

I would say that this line means Ehrman doesn't accept the Mythicist idea (unless you use the overly broad definition that Maximara likes to conflate with Carrier's MJ).

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?")

You can hem and you can haw but at the end if the day the FACT is that Carrier's MJ position in 2006 included three books that accepted a HJ that was not crucified being behind the Gospels and therefore there is nothing being conflated, Brainache.

 

[maximara]

Why not surprising?

Stone

Because too many people don't know the true range of the MJ theory. They go with the "Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community" idea and knock off for lunch ignoring all the other MJ theories out there (going from totally imaginary to partly historical):

* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.

* Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.

* Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community.

* Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.

* Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.

* The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd.

* Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify under this definition.

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."


As long as people keep ignoring the true range of the MJ theory they are fighting a loosing battle.

 

[Brainache]

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?")

You can hem and you can haw but at the end if the day the FACT is that Carrier's MJ position in 2006 included three books that accepted a HJ that was not crucified being behind the Gospels and therefore there is nothing being conflated, Brainache.

He refers to those Authors, but he forms his own Hypothesis.

I don't believe you are being honest about this. He believes there was a cult of people who worshipped a "Celestial Jesus" who was born and died in the heavens and never actually walked on Earth, if we can believe what he says in that lecture.

Why you continue to dispute this is beyond me.

 

[Brainache]

Because too many people don't know the true range of the MJ theory. They go with the "Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community" and knock off for lunch.

Ignoring all the other MJ theories out there:

* Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

* Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.
* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.[17]
* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.
* Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.
* The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[20] Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd.
* Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify as MJ under this definition.

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."

As long as people keep ignoring the true range of the MJ theory they are fighting a loosing battle.

If that is all you are arguing about, then why are you disputing the HJ?

That is all anyone on the HJ side of this debate is saying.

Why are you so obsessed with labels?

 

[Belz...]

What a big lie.

Oh, don't be modest. Your arguments are so ill-conceived and your attitude so toxic that you're pushing people away from your side. That's quite an accomplishment, and I'm starting to wonder if you're not a mole.

 

[Belz...]

Can you voice a response to this without resorting to straw-MJ lists ?

Again the MJ is NOT just the "no man behind the myth" strawman people think it is. The Gospel Jesus could be...

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Belz...]

I was just responding to the weird strawman being presented that I'm somehow accusing people of being religious believers.

The connection has been claimed many times before, so it's a valid concern.

Why would anyone agree with a false statement such as this?

Isn't it patently obvious that christian literature is full of mythology? Prophetic dreams, magic, corpses rising from the grave, people walking on water, etc etc etc?

What sort of evidence would one expect to find for a non-existent thing?

Only things that exist are capable of leaving evidence.

Did you respond to the wrong post ? I don't see how this relates to the one you quoted.

To answer your question: The existence of a mythology isn't much of a problem. Sure, it makes it harder to take the work seriously, and all, but there's quite a bit of mythicisation in a _lot_ of works from that period. I don't see your point. The fact of the matter is that there is _some_ weak evidence for HJ, and none for MJ, so perhaps MJ is correct, but it doesn't look that way.